Slashdot Mirror
How Networks Interact — Peering and Transit Explained
Raindeer writes to share his article about peering and transit between networks, which begins:
"In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously told BusinessWeek, 'What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that...Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?'
The story of how the Internet is structured economically is not so much a story about net neutrality, but rather it's a story about how ISPs actually do use AT&T's pipes for free, and about why AT&T actually wants them to do so. These inter-ISP sharing arrangements are known as 'peering' or 'transit,' and they are the two mechanisms that underlie the interconnection of networks that form the Internet. In this article, I'll take a look at the economics of peering and transit in order to give you a better sense of how traffic flows from point A to point B on the Internet, and how it does so mostly without problems, despite the fact that the Internet is a patchwork quilt of networks run by companies, schools, and governments."
These inter-ISP sharing arrangements are known as 'peering' or 'transit,'
This makes it sound like 'peering' and 'transit' mean the same thing, and cover all traffic-sharing agreements. To my knowledge, that's not the case (and wikipedia agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering).
There are three types of relationships. In one, called peering, A and B accept traffic from each other and don't exchange money. In the two other, A accepts traffic and money from B, while B accepts traffic from A. From B's point of view, that's called transit, while from A's point of view it's called customer.
(I hope at least some of you learned something you didn't know already. Otherwise, I've wasted the interpipe transit peering capacity).
At least the cellphone carriers only overcharge *one* end of the conversation for airtime. These beggers are arguing that they should get to charge BOTH ends the full price of the traffic.
..the public paid for over and over and over again way back when, plus later on they (that company and others) got shedloads more cash to upgrade those pipes, yet failed to do so, to the tune of 200 billion bucks. As in further, why aren't a lot of fatcats in jail yet for fraud? In true let it all hang out slashdot fashion, fuck those assholes. The "pipes" everywhere, leading from the smallest house to the big cross continental lines, should be taken back to public ownership and run as a commons or public co-op type deal, like the interstate road system is, or municipal water supply, or the public post office. charge a simple flat fee that pays for costs, then a little more, and it goes to improving and extending the networks, and get the private profit part out of the picture completely. I've had both a community telco experience and then be forced to use one of the old bells, no comparison, much better service and cheaper rates with the community telco model. And I certainly remember the olden days when those jerks got given a monopoly and abused it for decades. Screw 'em, they have proven to be greedy fucks forever, eminent domain seize the pipes and be done with it, then see to sticking some of those Cxx goons in jail for fraud, and make those "shareholders" in those asshole companies pay back the full 200 billion they stole, based on an exact proportion shares they hold and their part of that 200 billion dollars ripped off from the public. Fucking thieves. And then that would be lesson to other greedy companies and "stockholders" in the future if they are granted a pretty nice slice of some big public service pie and fail to do anything with it but rape it into the ground and screw everyone over.
The difference between transit and peering is explained on the first page of the article. Congratulations for posting before reading even that far.
if AT&T decides to be an ass, it's beneficial for the big players to just avoid AT&T and call their bluff. You can't sell bandwidth that doesn't go anywhere, and AT&T is hoping that companies will just roll over and not realize that they add value.
Seems like the kind of thing Google would be liable to do... teach the ISPs a lesson and whatnot. If Google just avoided AT&T's network for a day, I guarantee that concessions would be made.
Bandwidth is already purchased at both ends - Slashdot pays for bandwidth, I pay for bandwidth, and it works. AT&T can't triple-dip.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Generally peering happens at an IX, where a bunch of service providers chip in together towards the cost of running the IX (which has it's own independent management structure.) Service providers with a presence at the IX pay for their own infrastructure (switches, routers, Xbox 360s...)
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Normally each side would pay for their physical plant... to the peering point, and meet in the middle. The rooma at a datacenter of sufficient size to do so, is called a meet-me room.
I personally find it funny to see AT&T talking about tier-1 status peering, when referring about themselves... It's my understanding it's been a while since they did so.
...is a fundamental conflict of interest.
When AT&T said "What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free.", they meant "What they [Google --content provider--, Vonage --service provider--, and others --various providers--] would like to do is to use my [AT&T -- connection provider & content provider -- ] pipes free.
Now, if AT&T separated the connection service from the content, I think we could put a fair and equitable system in place. But as long as AT&T co-mingles the connection service (i.e. infrastructure) with any other service they provide they will never find it in their interest to give competitors equal access to the connection. This is easy enough to predict. Simply look at the current state of DSL providers that have to use AT&T's wires. They are practically non-existent. If AT&T is unwilling to allow connection competition and have the ability to avoid it, obviously they will be equally unwilling to allow search engine competition or digital TV competition or any other service they choose to get into or provide via partner arrangements.
I am no fan of increased government regulation, but if we end up with non net neutrality then we absolutely need government regulation that will set standard fees for network service costs to be paid to the infrastructure provider AND AT&T (and Comcast and DirecPC and everyone else) must be forced to separate the infrastructure business from the service business.
As an aside, I think the FCC should also require an accounting for the high speed infrastructure that AT&T and others promised when they gladly took advantage of the incentives they were given to build such an infrastructure and then never did. Had they kept their promise, it's likely we would not have the "PtP problem" (if it even exists) they are using to push the tiered internet idea.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Well, obviously somebody pays for the physical plant. It doesn't just magically appear in a shower of sparkles whenever two networks sign a peering agreement. But, each network just buys whatever equipment they need, and then they plug it together. It's just like if I decided I was going to run a cat. 5 cable to my neighbor's house. We'd basically have a peering arrangement where I could see his network, and he could see mine. He would own his switch, and I would own my switch. But, no money would change hands between us. I wouldn't pay for him to buy a switch so there is something for me to plug into. We would just each have the needed equipment. Maybe we would set up a two way redundant link, and each of us would buy an extra long cat 5 cable for the peering.
Peering between major networks is fundamentally the exact same thing as peering between home networks, or department networks on a school campus, or any other networks. The complexity of the networks being joined together may be different, and the equipment being used to do it may range from a ten dollar hub to a zillion dollar fiber optic monster, but the concept is the same.
When you sign up for Qwest DSL or whatever, it isn't like Qwest has a giant cable running from their building to THE INTERNET. The Internet is just a collection of networks. Some networks make you pay to connect. Others just connect between each other. That's the difference between transit and peering.
Sounds like Mr. Raindeer has never been the innocent victim of a peering dispute. I have. Sure, the system mostly works, but it's hardly a socialist's or open-sourcer's dream.
'What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that..
This guy is stealing "water" from Google, Vonage and many others in order to sell his otherwise unuseful pipes.
In my humble opinion he's so hypocrite that he should be shot dead for being such a axxxole.